Patiala House Court, New Delhi: In a suit instituted for the recovery of the dues along with interest, Satyabrata Panda, ADJ.*, opined that since the defendant had failed to response to the legal notice, adverse inference would be that the defendant was not disputing the liability, otherwise in ordinary course the defendant would have responded disputing liability. Thus, the Court opined that on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff had been able to prove its case as pleaded in the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of Rs. 6,06,043 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 20-05-2022 till date of filing of the suit, and at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till date of actual realization.
Background
In the present case, Press Trust of India Limited, the plaintiff, was a premier news agency providing national and international news to various newspapers, televisions/radio networks, websites, and others on subscription basis. Business Broadcast News Pvt. Ltd., the defendant availed several services from the plaintiff, and the present suit was related to the services which were being availed by the defendant under an agreement dated 01-05-2018, called the PTI Service License Agreement. Although, the defendant defaulted in payments under all the service agreements and the entire dues of the plaintiff against the defendant were around Rs. 24, 83,561, however, the present suit was only for the dues under agreement dated 01-05-2018, between the parties to the tune of Rs. 6,06,043.
The defendant for its news channel availed PTI Core Plus News Service through News View delivery system and the same was provided to the defendant by the plaintiff at monthly subscription fee of Rs. 2,74,219 and additional Rs. 700 was also payable by the defendant. The terms of service were reduced in the written agreement dated 01-05-2018, and the defendant after availing uninterrupted service for a considerable period started defaulting in payment of subscription fee. The plaintiff received an e-mail dated 19-06-2019 from the defendant communicating the termination of subscription from 31-07-2019. Consequently, the services provided the plaintiff to the defendant were discontinued with effect from 31-07-2019.
On the date of discontinuation of service, there were certain dues payable by the defendant, however, the defendant failed to make the payments despite several reminders issued by the plaintiff. Further, the defendant continuously admitted its liability to make payments against unpaid invoices, however, failed to clear its legal dues despite several reminders issued by the plaintiff.
Upon the failure of the defendant to make payments against the legal dues despite repeated reminders, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice dated 20-05-2022 demanding that the outstanding dues be cleared. However, the defendant neither replied to the notice nor made the payment, which made it clear that the intention of the defendant was not to make payments. Thus, the plaintiff had filed the present suit seeking recovery of money along with interest.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
Since, the defendant failed to appear in the suit despite the service, the proceedings were ex parte, and as such the averments made in the plaint remain unrebutted and unchallenged. The Court opined that there was no reason for the defendant to not appear in the suit despite service, if the defendant really had any defence to make. The inference which could be drawn was that the defendant had no defence to give in the suit.
The Court opined that the plaintiff was able to show that it had raised three invoices, and showed that in its statement of account, as maintained in the ordinary course of business there was an outstanding balance of Rs.6,06,043. Further, the plaintiff was also able to show through the email correspondence, that the plaintiff had been calling upon the defendant to make the payment of the total amount of Rs. 24,83,562. The Court opined that from the email correspondence between the parties it was clear that the defendant was not disputing the billed amounts but was trying to get a discount which was not agreed to by the plaintiff. Thus, the liability to make payment for the bills was admitted by the defendant.
The Court opined that since the defendant had failed to response to the legal notice, adverse inference would be that the defendant was not disputing the liability, otherwise in ordinary course the defendant would have responded disputing liability. Thus, the Court opined that on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff had been able to prove its case as pleaded in the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of Rs. 6,06,043 along with interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from 20-05-2022 till date of filing of the suit, and at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till date of actual realization.
[Press Trust of India Ltd. v. Business Broadcast News Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 2, decided on 03-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Satyabrata Panda, Additional District Judge
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Kheyali Singh, Counsel.
